Q: What Should Be Done About Iran's Nuclear Program?
A: Nothing.
Recently, there have been lots of news stories about the possibility of air strikes to hit Iranian nuclear facilities. In particular, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been saying that the international community needs to act now to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and that this can take the form of air strikes, even if Israel has to go it alone.
Now, I think that Israel is one of the more sane states in the region...usually. I was impressed when Israel gave up the Gaza Strip - even going so far as to remove their own settlers. The result was an electoral victory for Hamas and a hail storm of rockets aimed at Israel. And the "Chomskyan liberals" (i.e. "human rights" activists that overlook all of the hateful rhetoric and violence in the Islamic world and think that Israel is the most oppressive country around) always seem to rush to call Israel a fascist state for defending itself. I'm not an "Israel hater".
However, it seems that lately, the head honchos in Israel have gone off the deep end. They are thinking of preemptively striking a country that - despite everything else I could say about it - is not in an offensive mode. Such a strike by Israel (or, Yaweh forbid, the U.S.) would be a colossal mistake and a recipe for disaster. In such a scenario, Iran would be the victim, and would be within its right not only to defend itself but to carry out a full-fledged war with Israel.
Despite what some people think, preemptive strikes are not defensive moves. They are offensive moves. And they should have no place in international affairs, unless the situation is dire. And it's not currently dire. If Iran said that it was developing nukes so that it could obliterate Israel, then I could understand that. But Iran maintains (even if it might be lying) that it is developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and that it isn't interested in creating nuclear weapons.
Now, what would happen if Israel strikes Iran? Let's think of it from an Iranian perspective. Do you think that it's more likely for a proud Iranian to say this:
"Well, our arch nemesis Israel just bombed our nuclear plants, ruining our nuclear program. I guess we have to just call it quits!"
or this:
"How dare they! Now, we will accelerate our program, and definitely create nuclear weapons to protect ourselves from future aggression, and we'll definitely wipe Israel off the map!"
I'd go with the latter. If Israel did bomb Iran, then they would have to continue bombing Iran every few years...until the end of time. And every time they bombed Iran, public opinion would turn more and more against Israel, and more people would side with Iran, and it would get progressively more difficult to carry out these attacks in the future. In other word, best case scenario, Israel would delay Iran for about 5 years. Then, they'd be in the same place as they are now (with even fewer friends).
What should the United States say to Israel?
The United States should say in no uncertain terms that it will not support an Israeli preemptive air strike on Iran, and that Israel risks losing the United States as an ally should they unilaterally carry one out.
The United States will not be required to defend Israel from other nations should Israel attack first.
What should the United States say to Iran?
The United States should say that it respects the right of Iran to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It should also say that as long as Iran does not produce a nuclear weapon or attack another country, it will be immune from any U.S. invasions.
This will make Iran realize that it is in fact safer without nuclear weapons than with them, and this would be the only way to make them desire peace. Threatening Iran will completely backfire.
Further, the U.S. should say that it trusts Iran and takes Iran at its word that it will not develop nuclear weapons. If Iran does develop nuclear weapons, then it will have gone against its word, and will have proven to the United States that it cannot be trusted. But unless that were to happen, the United States would have complete trust that Iran only wants nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Lastly, the U.S. should say that it recognizes Iran's right to produce nuclear weapons if it so desires. Iran is a country with equal standing to the United States in matters of international law. However, nations with nuclear arsenals automatically opt in to a new paradigm. These nations must be responsible and protect their arsenals and not allow them to fall into the hands of terrorists. They must also refrain from using them unless one is used in a military capacity by another nation.
This means that if Iran uses a nuclear weapon in any military context, then it has automatically enabled other countries to use nuclear weapons against Iran.
Also, if Iran has nuclear weapons and has shown that it cannot be trusted, then if a terrorist attack occurs using such weapons, the U.S. may presume that Iran is behind it, and nuclear weapons may be used against Iran, even if Iran never openly declared that it used those weapons. In this way, it is much safer (to avoid suspicion) to not develop nuclear weapons in the first place.
I think that this is the sanest way to go about things. It shows Israel that preemptive strikes are not the solution, and it shows Iran that its rights to provide itself energy will not be infringed
Furthermore, this will put the U.S. in better standing with Russia and China - two relationships which the U.S. hasn't been nourishing as of late, yet which it also can't do without.
I think that most people of these days have forgotten that peace cannot be taken for granted. Careless posturing and hubris can lead to profound misery in the world.
Comments
Post a Comment